PURPOSE: Attitudes regarding the ethics of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia have been examined in many cross-sectional studies. Stability of these attitudes has not been studied, and this is important in informing the dialog on PAS in this country. We evaluated the stability of attitudes regarding euthanasia and PAS among three cohorts. METHODS: Subjects included 593 respondents: 111 oncology patients, 324 oncologists, and 158 members of the general public. We conducted initial and follow-up interviews separated by 6 to 12 months by telephone, regarding acceptance of PAS and euthanasia in four different clinical vignettes. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents with stable responses to vignettes ranged from 69.2% to 94.8%. In comparison to patients and the general public, physicians had less stable responses concerning the PAS pain vignette (69.1% v 80.8%; P =.001) and more stable responses for all euthanasia vignettes (P <.001) except for pain. Over time, physicians were significantly more likely to change toward opposing PAS and euthanasia in all vignettes (P <.05). Characteristics previously associated with attitudes regarding PAS and euthanasia, such as Roman Catholic religion, were not predictive of stability. CONCLUSION: Up to one third of participants changed their attitudes regarding the ethical acceptability of PAS and euthanasia in their follow-up interview. This lack of consistency mandates careful interpretation of referendums and requests for physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, in this study, we found that physicians are becoming increasingly opposed to PAS and euthanasia. The growing disparity between physicians and patients regarding the role of these practices is large enough to suggest possible conflicts in the delivery of end-of-life care.
PURPOSE: Attitudes regarding the ethics of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia have been examined in many cross-sectional studies. Stability of these attitudes has not been studied, and this is important in informing the dialog on PAS in this country. We evaluated the stability of attitudes regarding euthanasia and PAS among three cohorts. METHODS: Subjects included 593 respondents: 111 oncology patients, 324 oncologists, and 158 members of the general public. We conducted initial and follow-up interviews separated by 6 to 12 months by telephone, regarding acceptance of PAS and euthanasia in four different clinical vignettes. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents with stable responses to vignettes ranged from 69.2% to 94.8%. In comparison to patients and the general public, physicians had less stable responses concerning the PAS pain vignette (69.1% v 80.8%; P =.001) and more stable responses for all euthanasia vignettes (P <.001) except for pain. Over time, physicians were significantly more likely to change toward opposing PAS and euthanasia in all vignettes (P <.05). Characteristics previously associated with attitudes regarding PAS and euthanasia, such as Roman Catholic religion, were not predictive of stability. CONCLUSION: Up to one third of participants changed their attitudes regarding the ethical acceptability of PAS and euthanasia in their follow-up interview. This lack of consistency mandates careful interpretation of referendums and requests for physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, in this study, we found that physicians are becoming increasingly opposed to PAS and euthanasia. The growing disparity between physicians and patients regarding the role of these practices is large enough to suggest possible conflicts in the delivery of end-of-life care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach